Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 6, 2019

13098047 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/098,047 04/29/2011 Steven R. Peters
141825 7590 03/08/2019
The Lincoln Electric Company
22801 Saint Clair Avenue
Legal Department
Cleveland, OH 44117
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2011-027-US-NP 7795
EXAMINER
WARD, THOMAS JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ip@lincolnelectric.com
desiree _ cunin @lincolnelectric.com
ginger_mcghee@lincolnelectric.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEVENR. PETERS and PATRICK WAHLEN
Appeal2018-001961
Application 13/098,047
Technology Center 3700
Before LINDAE. HORNER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 6-13, 22-25,
28-31, 33, 34, and 39, which are all the claims pending in the application. 2,3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Lincoln Global, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1-5, 14--21, 26, 27, 32, and 35-38 have been cancelled. See, e.g.,
Appeal Br. 18-21 (Claims App'x). Indication to the contrary in the Office
Action Summary, Final Act. 1, appears to be in error.
3 The Final Office Action is dated March 24, 2017, and is supplemented by
an Advisory Action dated June 1, 2017.
Appeal 2018-001961
Application 13/098,047
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 are independent. Claim 6, reproduced below with
selected limitations emphasized, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
6. A welding apparatus for welding heavy plate work pieces,
said welding apparatus comprising:
a laser welding device which directs a laser beam to a first
weld puddle of said work piece to weld at least a portion of said
work piece;
a welding torch located adjacent to said laser welding
device so as to direct a first welding electrode to said first weld
puddle while said laser beam is being directed to said first weld
puddle, where said welding torch deposits said first welding
electrode to create a first weld bead onto said portion welded by
said laser welding device;
a flux nozzle which deposits a welding flux onto said first
weld bead; and
at least two submerged arc welding torches which,
subsequent to creating said first weld bead by said laser welding
device and said welding torch, direct a corresponding submerged
arc filler metal to said first weld bead to create a second weld
bead through a submerged arc welding process in which said at
least two submerged arc welding torches share a common weld
puddle, wherein said at least two submerged arc welding torches
are positioned at an angle with respect to each other such that
the respective submerged arc filler metal of said at least two
submerged arc welding torches shares said common weld puddle
during said submerged arc welding process, and
wherein said submerged arc welding process melts at least
a portion of said first weld bead to consume said melted portion
into said second weld bead.
2
Appeal 2018-001961
Application 13/098,047
Rejections
I. Claims 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(e) as anticipated by Tolling (WO 2011/072734 Al, published June 23,
2011 ). Final Act. 2-3.
II. Claims 6-13, 22-25, 28-31, 33, 34, and 39 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Tolling and Hybinette (US
2010/0320174 Al, published Dec. 23, 2010). Final Act. 4---6.
III. Claims 6-13, 22-25, and 28-31 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gandy (US 6,884,959 B2, issued
Apr. 26, 2005), Koichi4 (US 2007/0013471 Al, published Jan. 18, 2007),
Tolling, and Danhier (US 3,200,232, issued Aug. 10, 1965). Final Act. 6-
10.5
DISCUSSION
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Tolling discloses wherein
"said at least two submerged arc welding torches are positioned at an angle
with respect to each other such that the respective submerged arc filler metal
of said at least two submerged arc welding torches shares said common weld
puddle during said submerged arc welding process," as recited in
independent claims 6 and 10. For purposes of this decision, we will refer to
this portion of the claims as the "disputed limitations."
4 Although this patent is to Minami et al., the Examiner referred to it by
inventor Minami's first name as listed, "Koichi." We do the same for
consistency.
5 We exclude claims 26 and 32 from the rejection because these claims were
canceled prior to the Final Office Action.
3
Appeal 2018-001961
Application 13/098,047
Rejection 1-35 USC§ 102(e)
Claims 6, 8, 9
The Examiner finds that Tolling's welding heads 34a and 34b are the
claimed "at least two submerged arc welding torches." Final Act. 3. The
anticipation rejection of claim 6 in the Final Office Action does not address
whether Tolling discloses that the two submerged arc welding torches "are
positioned at an angle with respect to each other." See id. at 2-3. In the
Response to Arguments section of the Final Office Action, the Examiner
recites the disputed limitations, and finds:
Tolling et al provides almost the same exact structure as the
claimed invention where Tolling et al et al [sic] discloses a
welding process and a welding arrangement comprising a hybrid
welding head 2 which includes an optic system 8 producing a
laser for welding (laser welding device, Fig. 1) which is aimed at
interaction zone 24 ( first weld puddle) which creates a root
portion 58 (first bead) and an electric arc welding head 12
(welding torch, Fig. 1) located adjacent to the optic system 8 to
direct an electrode 14 to interaction zone 24 where head 12 is
capable of depositing electrode 14 to create a weld bead onto
portion welded by optic system 8; submerged welding head 4
which includes flux powder applicator 32 (flux nozzle) which is
capable to deposit flux powder and submerged electrode heads
34a and 34b supplying a consumable electrode 36a,36b
penetrating a layer 3 8 of flux powder covering the area to be
welded ( common weld puddle) where the root portion 5 8 of
created by head 2 is melted by the heat affected zone from
submerged welding head 4 where the submerged welding head 4
and hybrid welding head 2 travel the same path and will share
the same weld puddle when used (Fig. 3).
Final Act. 11 ( emphasis added). The above-quoted findings do not explain
how Tolling discloses that the two submerged arc welding torches 34a and
34b "are positioned at an angle with respect to each other."
4
Appeal 2018-001961
Application 13/098,047
Appellants point out, and the Examiner does not dispute, that "Tolling
discloses a structure in which the submerged arc welding torches are parallel
to each other." Appeal Br. 9. We agree, as evidenced by the orientation of
electrode heads 34a and 34b in Figure 1 of Tolling. In the Examiner's
Answer, the Examiner explains that "[t]he angle between submerged
electrode heads 34a and 34b is zero angle, which by definition is still an
angle." Ans. 16-17. The issue, then, is whether claim 6 is reasonably
interpreted to encompass a "zero angle," i.e., submerged arc welding torches
positioned parallel to one another.
We determine that, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
one of skill in the art would understand welding torches "positioned at an
angle with respect to each other," as recited in claim 6, to exclude parallel
positioning of the torches. To read the disputed limitations as encompassing
parallel heads renders superfluous the phrase "at an angle with respect to
each other." Use of the phrase in the Specification further supports
interpreting "at an angle with respect to each other" to exclude parallel
positioning. For example, paragraph 27 of the Specification provides that
welding torch 205 as depicted in Figure 2 "is positioned such that the first
filler metal 207 ( welding electrode) is delivered to the weld at an angle with
respect to the surface of the weld" ( emphasis added). Figure 2 shows torch
205 positioned at an oblique angle with respect to the weld surface. In
addition, the laser beam is positioned normal to the surface of the weld, see
Spec. ,r 26, and "the laser beam 203 and the filler metal 207 are not parallel
to each other" because the welding electrode is delivered "at an angle" with
respect to the surface of the weld, Spec. ,r 27. Thus, interpreting "at an
angle" to include any angle is not consistent with use of the phrase in
5
Appeal 2018-001961
Application 13/098,047
paragraph 27 of the Specification. Use of the terms "angled" and "angling"
in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Specification, describing the positioning of
the submerged arc welding torches, is consistent with paragraph 27.
Paragraph 34 states that Figure 2 shows "the torches 213 and 215 are angled
with respect to the weld and are angled such that the respective fillers 214
and 216 are directed towards each other." Considering use of forms of the
term "angle" in the claim and Specification, we determine that the
Examiner's interpretation of claim 6 to include parallel positioning of the
submerged arc welding torches is not reasonable.
Because the rejection of claim 6 as anticipated by Tolling relies on an
incorrect claim construction, we do not sustain the rejection. For the same
reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 8 and 9,
which are rejected on the same ground.
Rejections II and III
As noted above, independent claim 10 also recites that the two
submerged arc welding torches "are positioned at an angle with respect to
each other." The additional prior art references included in Rejections II and
III are not relied on to cure the deficiency relating to the submerged arc
welding torches being positioned at an angle with respect to each other, as
discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 6-13, 22-25, 28-31, 33, 34, and 39 as unpatentable over
Tolling and Hybinette (Rejection II), or claims 6-13, 22-25, and 28-31 as
unpatentable over Gandy, Koichi, Tolling, and Danhier (Rejection III).
6
Appeal 2018-001961
Application 13/098,047
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 6-13, 22-25, 28-
31, 33, 34, and 39.
REVERSED
7